IceMOS Technology Corp. v. Omron Corp.

          AMENDED ORDER ^[*]

          JAMES A. TEILBORG, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Pending before the Court are Omron Corporation's (“Defendant”) motions to preclude testimony of IceMOS Technology Corporation's (“Plaintiff”) experts Walter Bratic (Doc. 293) and Uzi Sasson (Doc. 299) (collectively, “Defendant's Daubert Motions”). The Court now rules on the motions.^[1]

         I. BACKGROUND

         On September 4, 2019, Defendant filed its Motion to Preclude Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert Walter Bratic (Doc. 293). Plaintiff responded on September 19, 2019 (Doc. 332), and Defendant filed its Reply on September 25, 2019 (Doc. 337).

         On September 5, 2019, Defendant filed its Motion to Preclude Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert Uzi Sasson (Doc. 299). Plaintiff responded on September 19, 2019 (Doc. 333), and Defendant filed its Reply on September 26, 2019 (Doc. 340).

         The parties also filed various motions to seal relating to Defendant's Daubert Motions.

         a. Facts

         Plaintiff is in the business of selling super junction metal oxide semiconductor field-effect transistors (“MOSFETs”). (Doc. 25 at 2). Plaintiff needs fabrication services to produce these products. (Id.). In 2007, Defendant purchased a wafer fabrication facility and shortly thereafter suggested to Plaintiff that Defendant and Plaintiff should enter into business together. (Id.). After negotiations, the two parties eventually came to an agreement (“Supply Agreement”) on February 28, 2011. (See id.). The Supply Agreement provided that Defendant would “perform the fabrication requested by Plaintiff” and that Defendant would “fully resource the development of all generations of” Plaintiff's super junction MOSFET (“SJ MOSFET”) for the duration of the agreement. (Id.; see also Doc. 59 at 10; Doc. 60 at 16). On March 6, 2018, the Supply Agreement terminated. (Doc. 60 at 37). Plaintiff alleges breach of contract and fraud and seeks actual damages. (Doc. 59 at 33- 38). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges damages for lost profits and lost development support. (See Doc. 59 at 33-35). The Court has dismissed Plaintiff's claims for lost profits on summary judgment but denied summary judgment as to the lost development support claim. (Doc. 355).

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         When a party seeks to offer an expert opinion, the party must show that the expert's opinion satisfies the requirements set forth by Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Rule 702 provides:

A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: (a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;

(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;

(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

Fed. R. Evid. 702. Trial judges must make a preliminary assessment on whether expert testimony is admissible. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589 (1993). “[T]he trial judge must ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable.” Id. The Rule 702 inquiry is “flexible” and its “focus, of course, must be ...